Bill Cassidy

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, what you see depends on where you sit. Last Friday, it was announced that the BRIC Program, or the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Program, run by FEMA would end, and money which had been allocated would be pulled back from the States which were receiving it. Now, most families across the country have not heard of the BRIC Program, but if you were to explain what it does, they would say, oftentimes, that they need it. I can tell you folks in Louisiana do. Louisiana has benefited the most per capita in the BRIC's latest round of funding, and I would argue that this actually saves tax dollars for the rest of the country because the BRIC Program helps prevent against flooding, flooding that may occur after a big rain event or after a hurricane. And in Louisiana and in many parts of our country, this is an inevitable part of life. But the best way to recover from a flood is to never flood at all. The old saying: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Another: A stitch in time saves nine. The same principle applies to flood resilience and mitigation infrastructure. When we invest in levies and floodwalls, communities are protected when the storm hits, and the Federal Government saves billions in a recovery effort that never has to be done. If you go down to South Louisiana, for example, you will see homes elevated by the BRIC Program that were not previously elevated. Now that they are elevated, that family is secure should the floodwaters come. Now, you can say: Wait a second. That is just Louisiana. There is a parish in Louisiana in which the flood control structures prevented 10,000 homes from being flooded in the last hurricane--talk about an ounce of prevention because those programs, those families, they would have received Federal help. Turns out no Federal help was needed because we were able to build resilience. We were able to keep those homes from flooding in the first place. This is the type of work that we need to do. And if we do it, then never is a National Flood Insurance Program claim filed. The family saves; the taxpayer saves. Investing now saves money down the line. That is why back in 2018, during President Trump's first term, Congress established the BRIC Program to invest in those flood protections needed to prevent future flooding. And through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, another billion dollars was added to that program. This is because the BRIC Program is an effective tool, the type of tool that my communities in my State and communities elsewhere in the country depend upon. Now, apparently, though, the BRIC Program is in danger. And it is being endangered, I gather, because of the effort to eliminate government waste. Now, there is a lot of government waste, and I am all for eliminating that waste. If there is fraud, we should eliminate it. If there is waste, we should eliminate it. But preventing homes from flooding, that if they do flood will cost the Federal taxpayer billions of dollars, that is not waste; that is good planning. That is what we should all be doing in every aspect of our life: planning ahead, planning proactively. The waste is that, if we don't do this program and the inevitable flood occurs, then we have to go in and rescue communities. That is waste because we could have prevented that from happening in the first place by implementing programs such as the BRIC Program. I would ask FEMA to reconsider the impact of cuts to the BRIC Program and to reconsider canceling the BRIC applications that are already placed. They should. This is a congressionally authorized piece of legislation--authorized and congressionally appropriated. Congress has said that this program will exist. We passed BRIC into law. We provided funds for it. To do anything other than to use that money to protect families from flooding, to protect the Federal taxpayer from having to put out billions to rescue communities which have flooded, is to thwart the will of Congress. And that is why Congress passed it in the first Trump term, and that is why President Trump supported it. It improves efficiency, not decreases it. I can tell you, people in South Louisiana--whether it is Terrebonne, Lafourche, Ascension Parishes, and places you wouldn't expect to flood like Livingston Parish--that overwhelmingly--that supported President Trump 95 percent of the time, they would overwhelmingly support this sort of flood mitigation. Here are some examples of the money that is already going out: Roughly, $40 million to the city of Central; $36 million to Ascension Parish. In Central, they were trying to reduce flooding after the great floods of 2016 in Louisiana, trying to keep that from happening again. The $36 million to Ascension Parish is to fortify electrical infrastructure. Hurricane comes along; electricity goes out. Of course, no electricity, the whole community is incapacitated. Twenty million dollars to Lafourche Parish to strengthen 16 miles of power lines; $10 million to the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana to provide evacuation routes during flooding. Evacuation routes during flooding, that is something that we should make sure we are building so that you don't have to helicopter people out or you don't have to get them out by boat. So these are examples of BRIC Programs that are a stitch in time that will save nine. Now, of course, it is important to my State. I will point out that Louisiana was the third largest recipient of BRIC Program funding recently and the largest on a per capita base. And without BRIC funding, none of these projects would happen--whether it is East Baton Rouge Parish, Ascension Parish, Lafourche, or the Coushatta Tribe. Lafourche Parish President Archie Chaisson had a $25 million application for grid-hardening so that the people of Lafourche would be able to get back on their feet quicker after a hurricane. I can tell you, I went down to Lafourche Parish after the last hurricane, and all the power poles had just toppled over. It is almost as if you were playing dominoes. They weren't touching, but they all toppled just like that. And there were crews from around the country that had been-- electrical crews that had been mobilized to come and reinstall those. If you hardened the grid, that doesn't happen. If you harden the grid, those tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars spent to get those electricity poles back up does not have to be spent. This money is an investment in a more resilient future that doesn't require the investment of private and public capital to restart communities. This is not waste. In fact, if you went to Archie Chaisson's parish, I can tell you, those folks would tell you they are against government waste. They would also tell you that this is not waste. This is something which will save their homes, save lives, and save communities. Now, we can ask ourselves if FEMA were to move forward with the plan to cut BRIC, what would be the alternative? Flooding costs up to almost $500 billion in damage every year throughout the United States, not just Louisiana. Again, $500 billion in damage that we have to pay after the fact versus investing a few million now to prevent. Now, the darker the color, the more the recent flooding. So you can say, although I have been speaking about Louisiana, you can see that, across our Nation, floods have been destroying homes and neighborhoods; downing power lines; harming businesses; in some cases, taking lives. Just since the start of 2025, at least eight Americans in these four States in dark red have died as a result of storms hitting their communities. In the last 3 months, 37 States have experienced flooding. These are the States that are in red. It goes all the way from Maine to Minnesota, to Michigan, to Montana--you don't think of Montana being a flood State--Idaho. All of these States in red have had flooding in the last 3 months. And you see, it is not just the coastline in which there is a coastal surge like Louisiana or Florida. It is also what is called riverine. ``Riverine'' meaning you have a valley, a river down the middle, the river rises, and people on the lower part of that valley--I think that would be the situation in Kentucky--are going to flood. These are all places that could benefit from a resiliency program, from a BRIC Program. We know it works. We know it saves money. And just to bring this home to my State, this is Livingston Parish, LA, just after the great flood of 2016. Look at that. These are homes in areas that had never flooded before. And in some incredible, once- in-500-years flood event, they were all flooded. Livingston Parish, 2016--we call it the Great Flood. It affected not just this parish but all those in what we call the capital region--Tangipahoa Parish, going up to Monroe, LA--it was almost a statewide event. Now, if we built resiliency, this doesn't happen. If you look at this, can you image the Federal response? They were so honored then-Presidential candidate Donald Trump came down and spent time in Livingston Parish after this flood to call attention to it because he felt as if President Obama was not paying attention. President Trump came with Vice President nominee Pence, spent time there, brought hope to the people, and that is when, in 2018--I am sure part of his motivation was to sign into law what has ultimately become the BRIC Program. These people testify with their flooding how lives are changed when you don't have resiliency. I just want to say one more thing because I would talk to these people. I am privileged to represent them. Each of these homes has a story. There was a wedding dress that a mother had, saving for her daughter, that was ruined in a flood. There were wedding pictures from a grandparent, parents, and daughters--multigeneration--and an album to save for generations totally lost in a flood. There were, in this flood, neighbors who went out and died, not recognizing the place they were stepping wasn't the side of a road but rather a ditch, and they went down, got swept away in this flood. I can go through each house and imagine a story that could have been prevented if there had been resiliency built into this community before this flood. The purpose of the BRIC grants is to build that resiliency so that we don't have stories to tell which are tragic or sad but rather stories where people continue on with their life as if--well, as if the flood never occurred. Local leaders advocating implementing using these dollars are advocating for the people they represent. So am I. Right now, representing those people calls for me to ask that any effort to stop BRIC grant funding is halted, that the will of Congress, that the law that Congress passed, that the funding Congress put into the program, that be honored--by law, it should be honored--and that the money which is out there stays there and the applications which have been placed be accepted, processed, and fulfilled. If rules need to be changed because the Biden administration did things which are silly to have done, then change those rules. But to end a program--to end a program--which has the ability to prevent this sort of disaster, not just in my State but across the Nation, we should not end that program. To do so is to inflict harm both upon the rule of law and upon these communities. Let's keep BRIC in place. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, our country has had some pretty severe economic challenges as of late. I am not talking about the recent stock market losses; although those are quite important for someone with a 401(k). I am talking about how real Americans, average Americans, feel as if the American dream of homeownership, of buying a new car or truck, of buying their child a car, or affording a student loan is just slipping out of their grasp. We saw this fear during the Biden administration when inflation was so high that the Federal Reserve increased interest rates. As these interest rates rose, so did consumer interest rates on all sorts of things, directly impacting the ability of a family to realize the American dream. This speech is about how we preserve that ability of Americans to achieve that dream and how what we are doing today--tonight, in this Congress--directly impacts that. Now, it may seem pretty distant to someone who is watching from home, but it does directly impact that. How much money the Federal Government borrows, how much this budget resolution leads to increased indebtedness sounds abstract, but it impacts your ability to buy that home, to buy that car, to attend that school. Some of the process discussions that normally wouldn't matter to you if you are outside of Congress are actually extremely important to this discussion as to how much we are going to borrow and how much we are going to enable Americans in Louisiana--the State I am privileged to represent--and elsewhere achieve their dream. Let me explain. As our country borrows more money--so we pass something, and our debt explodes, and as our country has to borrow money to pay for that debt, it begins to compete with businesses, with individuals, with families as they also go out and try and borrow money. Now, the Federal Government is always going to get the first amount, and it is going to be the others who have to pay more to compete. Paying more means you pay more for your mortgage; you pay more for your car note; you pay more for your student loan interest rate. The only way to keep this from happening is for the Federal Government to live within its means. I think the inflation over the last 4 years is one of the principal reasons the American people tossed Joe Biden out and put Donald Trump back into the White House. The Biden administration did not live within its means. It borrowed a lot of money and drove up interest rates. The American people couldn't afford that which they expected to be able to buy. They voted for change. Now, President Trump understands this. When he spoke to Congress last month, he spoke of the renewal of the American dream. In that speech about renewing the American dream, he spoke about having a balanced budget. He understands; he desires; he sees the connection between living within our means and making it good for fellow Americans. By the way, I agree with him. I agree that balancing the Federal budget is key to preserving that dream. So why is this important now? Our country, right now--not tomorrow, right now--is $36 trillion in debt--36 trillion with a ``t.'' And if we do nothing, if all we do is status quo, continue on the wrong path, it is estimated we will add $21 trillion to that indebtedness over the next 10 years. What about today? We are going to vote on the budget resolution tonight. If we vote on that budget resolution and it leads to a reconciliation bill which is not paid for, we will add another $5 to $11 trillion on top of that $36 trillion, plus $21 trillion. We could end up with $65 to almost $70 trillion of indebtedness 10 years from now if we don't do that right. I am a doctor. I am going to borrow a term from medicine. I am going to adapt it, if you will. That would be congressional malpractice. We do not want to be guilty of congressional malpractice. At some point, the problem begins to build upon itself. Currently, a fifth of tax revenue is used to pay interest on the debt. Twenty percent of all the money the Federal Government gets is right now being used to pay interest on the debt. That is more than we spend on national defense. I am going to repeat that one. Right now, we are paying more--paying back people who lent us money--than we are paying to protect our country and to pay the troops who are doing so. There is a historian, Niall Ferguson, who says that, when a country is spending more on debt service than on defending itself, that is the mark of a country in decline. The current Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, made a similar point in a FOX News op-ed. He wrote that ``America's next security crisis is lurking in our pocketbooks''; that ``our escalating debt crisis hurts national security in three key ways: it diminishes our financial `surge capacity,' it robs our private sector of capital for productive investment, and it imperils America preeminent role in international financial markets.'' Scott Bessent is now Secretary Bessent, and he is right. The debt is a threat to our national security and to the economic security of the American family. By the way, families know this. You might be in Caddo Parish, LA; you might be in Covington, LA. But they have learned to live within their means, and we should learn something from those Louisiana families. Let's discuss the budget resolution before us. To be sure, this resolution only sets up a discussion of a reconciliation bill, and the reconciliation bill is where we actually establish how much is spent and where it should be spent. Nevertheless, this budget resolution points in a direction and establishes certain parameters. At this point, I am going to discuss a little bit about process. There has been a lot of debate in Washington about using current policy versus current law as baseline in this budget resolution. Current policy has never been used as baseline involving this much money and in a reconciliation bill. I am going to show a chart here. In this chart--these are the years over here. This is 2025 going all the way out to 2055. And this is how much our debt is as a percent of our tax revenue. You can see that, if this is what the Congressional Budget Office says is our current trajectory, that, in 2055, we will have a debt-to-GDP ratio of about 156 percent; that, under what we are looking at, could increase that to 211 to 230 percent. So if this is the trajectory we are on, which is not great, but if all we do is what we are doing today, without any effort to offset it, we would increase this 210 to 230 percent. Now, somewhere around 174 percent, the economists say we are in trouble. To borrow a gastroenterological term--I am a gastroenterologist--we are in deep doo-doo. And then that is what we have to worry about. I have discussed this extensively with my Senate colleagues. I am pleased to say there is a commitment from President Trump and the White House to work with Senators to go through the budget line by line to see where there could be savings. The White House and Congress have committed to working together to decrease the regulatory hassle that keeps a business from starting a new venture, to create more jobs, to hire more people, to give them better salaries. Let's cut that redtape and allow those businesses and those workers to achieve their potential. In doing so, it increases revenue. When people are making more money, they pay more taxes. Clearly, the President is working hard now to make the government work more efficiently--again, which saves us money. I have been assured that there is a commitment in other ways to pay for the eventual reconciliation bill. Now, I am not saying that I think that it is better that we use current policy as baseline. It has never been done before in a study like this. I think it establishes a dangerous precedent. It might be within the rules to do so, but it doesn't mean it is wise to do so. As a conservative, I know sometimes that even if you can open Pandora's box, it is better not to. Put differently, just because you can, doesn't mean you should. But it appears we are going to do that. Also, using current policy as baseline should not suggest to us that the current Tax Code is perfect. I would say far from it. According to publicly available information, Jeff Bezos--the second richest man in the world--got a child tax credit several years ago. Tax credits for children are supposed to go to middle income and lower income families, not to the second richest man in the world. I hope, as we go through this, we can modify that. Let the dollars go where they are needed, not to someone who is obviously wealthier than any of us put together. All that said, this vote is not taking place in a vacuum. It is taking place when the stock market has had two successive days of greater than a 1,500-point decline. This kind of crash in the stock market creates uncertainty, which makes companies less likely to invest, which makes it less likely that new jobs will be created. And creating new, good-paying jobs is essential to that individual, that family enjoying the American dream. Upon consideration and given the commitment from leadership, I would say that not passing this budget resolution could increase the uncertainty in the economy, and that is something I do not wish to do. And given the commitment from leadership to pay for this bill by a variety of mechanisms, whether it is from within the reconciliation vehicle or outside of that process, and, once more, the need to reestablish confidence among those creating jobs, I will vote for this budget resolution. As we move on from this budget resolution to the reconciliation bill, I will look to make sure that we are truly paying for it and addressing the national debt. To that end, let me kind of mention something as an aside--no, not as an aside, as directly impacting this conversation. I encourage the use of America's abundance as a way to increase the possibility of Americans achieving the American dream and as a way to also help pay for the government we now have. One example, I applaud President Trump for advocating greater exploration of oil and gas on Federal lands. This creates great paying jobs, it is a tax base for communities, and it generates significant revenue for the Federal Government, not by raising taxes, and it doesn't cut benefits, but by exploiting, if you will, in a positive way, the resources we have to produce that which is essential to live in a modern life. I have also proposed in other settings other solutions that can address our Nation's indebtedness without raising taxes or cutting benefits. Again, I have spoken to these in the past. I will speak to them in the future. I want America to be great for all Americans; that we can all live to the limits of our God-given gifts. Creating opportunity is part of this. My hope, my expectation, is that through this process we are currently in we will create more opportunity for every American to express his or her God-given gifts and to achieve the American dream. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, this is a one-size-fits-all inflationary amendment. Increasing the wage by more than 230 percent even over 5 years will destroy jobs, impacting rural areas and low-margin small businesses that cannot afford such an increase. A law mandating a higher minimum wage doesn't mean much to a worker who loses his or her job because of this. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. Vote on Amendment No. 2126

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, 74,000 people died of fentanyl and fentanyl analogs in 2023. Everyone in this Chamber and everyone watching from home knows of someone who has died of a fentanyl overdose. If you watched the Super Bowl, 74,000 is more people than were in the New Orleans Superdome. Now, they didn't just occur in a border State or in my State or in the Presiding Officer's State; they occurred across the country. Every State is a border State when it comes to fentanyl flooding our country. Everyone has felt the effect of the 50,000 pounds of fentanyl that has poured across the open southern border or through the mail over the last couple of years. Fifty thousand pounds is enough to produce over 2 billion lethal doses--enough to kill everyone in the country six times over. I was just told by a friend about the DEA Museum just outside of Washington, DC. It has a new exhibit, the ``Faces of Fentanyl.'' You see walls covered with thousands of photographs of Americans--many of them young--who have died from an overdose. When you see the pictures on these walls, you can't see them, but you know the presence of parents, brothers, sisters, friends, cousins, aunts, and uncles who were devastated when that person on the wall died, when they heard the news that their loved one had bought a pill online or from somebody they happened to know. Perhaps they thought it was something else or perhaps they didn't know the potency. Nonetheless, when they took it, they died. The pain of this for so many people is why I urge my colleagues to join me in passing the HALT Fentanyl Act--to help law enforcement stop the criminals who are poisoning our fellow Americans. What does the HALT Fentanyl Act do? It makes permanent the schedule I classification of fentanyl and fentanyl analogs. What is a fentanyl analog? I am a doctor, so I am going to speak a little bit like a doctor. An analog is fentanyl, which is illegal except they change it just enough so that, when they change it, technically, it would not be illegal. Yes, it looks like fentanyl; it addicts like fentanyl; it can kill like fentanyl. Yet, because of a minor modification, it is not actually fentanyl, but it still has the same terrible, addictive, deadly effect of the actual thing. It still has the ability to take our loved ones from us. So how do we stop that? We say that whether it was fentanyl or a fentanyl analog, it is banned and that if you are illegally in possession of this or if you are selling it to other people, then law enforcement has the right to arrest you. This bill makes the schedule I classification--schedule I, meaning it is illegal to have--permanent. Aside from closing the loophole that criminals use to skirt around the law, we also strengthen the penalty for those who possess the fentanyl analog and, again, make it easier for law enforcement to prosecute. This isn't controversial; this is bipartisan. The need is there. We have been doing this on a temporary basis, but now we are going to make it permanent. Law enforcement will keep the most vital tool they have to hold fentanyl dealers accountable and to go after criminals. The bill also makes it easier to research fentanyl analogs to determine if they actually have a medical use. It is possible that one of these analogs is better than the real thing, and fentanyl does have, when prescribed by a physician appropriately, a valid medical use, so maybe one of these analogs is useful. We allow for research into that. At the same time, we give law enforcement the ability to prosecute if it is used for things such as to create an addiction. President Trump said he would sign this if we passed it. We are working--I am working--to get this bill to his desk. I would like to thank my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, the Judiciary Committee chairman, for moving this bill through his committee so quickly and thank the majority leader for bringing this bill up for a vote. I also want to thank my colleague from Wisconsin, Ron Johnson, for his work on this issue. I also thank Martin Heinrich from New Mexico, who has really cared about this issue, and Senator Heinrich has pushed this on a bipartisan basis. The longer we wait, the more it emboldens drug cartels, people in China who either send supplies to Mexico or mail the fentanyl itself through the mail, and other criminals who look to exploit our communities. We can take a concrete step in fighting the opioid crisis with the HALT Fentanyl Act. Republicans are united. This is a bipartisan bill. The country is united. Let's bring that 74,000 fentanyl death toll down to zero. I will never yield in this fight, but for now, I do yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, this is a theme I have been speaking of which affects States across the Nation, which is the National Flood Insurance Program and the threat that it might lapse and the inability of families to be able to afford. Why are flood insurance premiums so high, you might ask? Flood insurance premiums have skyrocketed across the country due to FEMA's new risk assessment system, Risk Rating 2.0. At the heart of the problem of Risk Rating 2.0 is that with much higher premiums, people will quickly be unable to afford coverage and just drop their policies. It is well-known in the insurance actuarial world that when you increase a policy by a certain percent, there is going to be another percent of people who just drop their coverage. That means that the pool of policyholders shrinks, and the program enters into what is called an actuarial death spiral, which is to say the risk, instead of being spread out over many, is concentrated in increasingly fewer people, driving up their premiums even that much more; therefore, more people drop. If we do nothing, the National Flood Insurance Program will collapse. This is important. The National Flood Insurance Program covers 4.7 million American homes across the country. Now, clearly, I am concerned about Louisiana, as that is my State, but it is not just Louisiana or even just a coastal issue. Look at a map of those affected. The States in dark yellow have been hit the hardest by flooding. They have all had at least $1 billion in claims from the National Flood Insurance Program. Missouri--inland--has had over $1 billion in claims from the National Flood Insurance Program, as has my home State of Louisiana. But just go around, and you can see California and Hawaii--all with this issue. Now, 44 States have had at least $50 million worth of claims, and those would be in the kind of mustard color. So here you see again inland States--not coastal but inland--having problems with flooding. When we say a ``problem with flooding,'' we mean there is a family that has lost their possessions. They have lost their home, and now, they don't know where to go. That is what we mean by a ``problem with flooding.'' My message to my colleagues representing States that rely on the National Flood Insurance Program is, let's find a way forward. One day, the National Flood Insurance Program will lapse if we fail to act. Now, we are going to, with this CR, do a temporary--temporary-- extension. I would ask that we actually have a reauthorization and a reform of the National Flood Insurance Program before it is too late. By the way, a short-term extension is better than nothing. I thank Speaker Johnson in the House for including a short-term extension. If that is the only option, let's take that option. However, I am working on a longer reauthorization so that the National Flood Insurance Program is not thrown into a legal purgatory every year or even sometimes multiple times a year. Today, I have introduced a bill to fully reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program for this year and for next year. There are 4.7 million homeowners across the country who deserve that little bit of certainty, and it does not seem like it is asking too much. Imagine if your homeowners or life insurance was subject to lapsing every year if Congress couldn't get their act together. Well, for families living in communities with the NFIP as the only option for flood insurance, this would be unsettling. In the past 10 years, Congress has passed 32 short-term National Flood Insurance Program extensions. The vote we are taking tomorrow will be the 33rd short-term extension--American families holding their breath 33 times. Families need stability. Businesses need stability. This is the absence of stability. This is a yin and a yang. Congress needs to reauthorize this for an extended period of time. Let's make flood insurance affordable again. I will keep working to do that. I am pleased that the Flood Insurance Program will survive the weekend, but we need to make it survive long term.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, this is a theme I have been speaking of which affects States across the Nation, which is the National Flood Insurance Program and the threat that it might lapse and the inability of families to be able to afford. Why are flood insurance premiums so high, you might ask? Flood insurance premiums have skyrocketed across the country due to FEMA's new risk assessment system, Risk Rating 2.0. At the heart of the problem of Risk Rating 2.0 is that with much higher premiums, people will quickly be unable to afford coverage and just drop their policies. It is well-known in the insurance actuarial world that when you increase a policy by a certain percent, there is going to be another percent of people who just drop their coverage. That means that the pool of policyholders shrinks, and the program enters into what is called an actuarial death spiral, which is to say the risk, instead of being spread out over many, is concentrated in increasingly fewer people, driving up their premiums even that much more; therefore, more people drop. If we do nothing, the National Flood Insurance Program will collapse. This is important. The National Flood Insurance Program covers 4.7 million American homes across the country. Now, clearly, I am concerned about Louisiana, as that is my State, but it is not just Louisiana or even just a coastal issue. Look at a map of those affected. The States in dark yellow have been hit the hardest by flooding. They have all had at least $1 billion in claims from the National Flood Insurance Program. Missouri--inland--has had over $1 billion in claims from the National Flood Insurance Program, as has my home State of Louisiana. But just go around, and you can see California and Hawaii--all with this issue. Now, 44 States have had at least $50 million worth of claims, and those would be in the kind of mustard color. So here you see again inland States--not coastal but inland--having problems with flooding. When we say a ``problem with flooding,'' we mean there is a family that has lost their possessions. They have lost their home, and now, they don't know where to go. That is what we mean by a ``problem with flooding.'' My message to my colleagues representing States that rely on the National Flood Insurance Program is, let's find a way forward. One day, the National Flood Insurance Program will lapse if we fail to act. Now, we are going to, with this CR, do a temporary--temporary-- extension. I would ask that we actually have a reauthorization and a reform of the National Flood Insurance Program before it is too late. By the way, a short-term extension is better than nothing. I thank Speaker Johnson in the House for including a short-term extension. If that is the only option, let's take that option. However, I am working on a longer reauthorization so that the National Flood Insurance Program is not thrown into a legal purgatory every year or even sometimes multiple times a year. Today, I have introduced a bill to fully reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program for this year and for next year. There are 4.7 million homeowners across the country who deserve that little bit of certainty, and it does not seem like it is asking too much. Imagine if your homeowners or life insurance was subject to lapsing every year if Congress couldn't get their act together. Well, for families living in communities with the NFIP as the only option for flood insurance, this would be unsettling. In the past 10 years, Congress has passed 32 short-term National Flood Insurance Program extensions. The vote we are taking tomorrow will be the 33rd short-term extension--American families holding their breath 33 times. Families need stability. Businesses need stability. This is the absence of stability. This is a yin and a yang. Congress needs to reauthorize this for an extended period of time. Let's make flood insurance affordable again. I will keep working to do that. I am pleased that the Flood Insurance Program will survive the weekend, but we need to make it survive long term.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise to acknowledge evangelist Jimmy Swaggart, who is celebrating his 90th birthday this Saturday. Reverend Swaggart was born in Ferriday, LA, on March 15, 1935, into a musically talented family. His cousins include rock and roll pioneer Jerry Lee ``The Killer'' Lewis and country music singer Mickey Gilley. Reverend Swaggart is also musically gifted. However, instead of becoming an entertainer, he answered the call to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ. Reverend Swaggart has devoted his life to advancing Christ's ministry and kingdom. He began full-time ministry in 1955. Over the next seven decades, Reverend Swaggart used all forms of mass communication to spread the word of God around the world. Reverend Swaggart launched the SonLife Broadcasting Network which generates more than 3,000 hours of live programming each year with an audience reach capability of 2 billion people. Additionally, Reverend Swaggart has authored more than 60 books and thousands of pages of Bible commentary. Reverend Swaggart has also built schools, founded churches, and has conducted revivals around the world. Reverend Swaggart's commitment to Christ is nothing short of inspiring. On behalf of the people of Louisiana and all Americans, I extend my heartfelt thanks to Reverand Swaggart for his selfless service. May his birthday celebration be filled with love, joy, and appreciation.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, for years, one more time, Congress has refused to make a definitive, permanent decision. It has failed to make schedule I classification of fentanyl- related substances permanent. Law enforcement needs permanence. It needs a definitive change to combat the opioid crisis and go after the criminals flooding communities with deadly drugs. Congress's inaction only emboldens China, drug cartels, and other criminals who exploit our communities, and that should not happen. We need a lasting solution. There is no reason to do any temporary extension. We have the bipartisan votes to make the schedule I classification permanent. This Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee, with the support of Judiciary Chairman Grassley and Senator Heinrich, is marking up the Halt All Lethal Trafficking of Fentanyl Act, or the HALT Fentanyl Act. This legislation permanently classifies fentanyl-related substances as schedule I controlled substances. Let's be clear. The HALT Fentanyl Act is not controversial. For two consecutive Congresses, it passed the House of Representatives with strong bipartisan support. There are enough votes to pass HALT in the Judiciary Committee and on the Senate floor this Congress. My Democratic colleague's legislation delays that permanency. Schedule I classification will once more be in jeopardy when the next deadline comes around. Law enforcement cannot continue to have this uncertainty. That is why, after my objection, I will ask unanimous consent to pass the HALT Fentanyl Act. This legislation has already passed the House of Representatives and has bipartisan support in the Senate. I hope all my Democratic colleagues will join in supporting the bill. We have a responsibility to provide law enforcement the tools they need to address the scourge of deadly drugs in our communities. Failure to act puts Americans in harm's way. For those reasons, I object.

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, because of my objection, I ask unanimous consent to pass the HALT Fentanyl Act to permanently classify fentanyl- related substances as schedule I controlled substances. The bill also removes barriers that impede the ability of researchers to conduct studies on these substances. The HALT Fentanyl Act has already passed the House of Representatives with overwhelming bipartisan support. It has support from Democrat and Republican Senators now. This is the bill the Senate should be voting on today, not just a temporary extension that creates greater uncertainty in our effort to address the opioid crisis but, again, one which establishes permanence, something which gives certainty to law enforcement to combat this, as I said earlier, scourge of illegal fentanyl. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 27 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's passion. Everybody watching me right now knows somebody who has died from a fentanyl overdose. You cannot minimize the impact of this on everyday families, but what is presented to us is a false choice and I would say the wrong choice. I think my colleague is saying, unless we pass his amendment to put this temporarily on hold--and, once more, refuse to make a decision to make this permanent--that somehow things will not get better. Let me repeat what I said in my earlier remarks: This Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee, with the support of Judiciary Chairman Grassley, a Republican, and Senator Heinrich, a Democrat, is marking up the Halt All Lethal Trafficking of Fentanyl Act, or the HALT Fentanyl Act. This Thursday is when it is going to be marked up. Now, this is a moving piece of legislation. If you want to do something more than this legislation does, you should have 2 months ago started working with that committee. Don't stop now. Call people tonight, and say: Listen. On Thursday, we are going to be marking this up. Will you consider my amendment? Make the case that was so impassionately given that we have got to do more than what we are doing. I agree. So the way to do it--because this has not yet been marked up this can still be modified. By the way, this is not the end of what we are going to do to address the issue of fentanyl. It does allow law enforcement to say: Listen, this isn't temporary. We now can kind of go to the bank, if you will. This is the law going forward. But if my esteemed colleague wants to make this more than it is now, that is the opportunity on Thursday. The process matters. Going Thursday, on a bipartisan basis and getting that buy-in, sitting down with a Senator who is undecided and working through it with that Senator and getting him or getting her to a yes, is part of that process. Delaying once more--delaying once more the permanence? Then we will say a year from now, once more, we will make it temporary, and we will make it temporary. There is something about deadlines. Deadlines sharpen a man's mind. If there is a deadline Thursday to get this on and then, when it is brought to the floor, there is a deadline to amend it on the floor, now is the time to act, but now is not the time to delay. I appreciate my colleague's passion, and I look forward to working with him. Neither of us ever wants to go to a family member, to a friend, to a fellow American and have to comfort them over the issue of another death from opioids. I just think that this is an important step and that, if there is more to be added, then let's add it, but let's not complain because it hasn't already been added. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to the following member of my staff: Jack K. Uhl for today.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 119th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying rules for the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I would like to make a statement regarding my vote in committee on behalf of Robert F. Kennedy to be the Secretary of HHS. First, I thank everyone who has contacted me over the last few days. Almost all have been respectful and seek the best for our country. I have been contacted by text, by phone, and by email. If I didn't respond to anyone, it was not to be rude; it is just that I was getting hundreds of messages a day personally and thousands through the office, and I just physically could not. Believe it or not, of these hundreds of people calling me and contacting me however they did, many of them disagree with each other diametrically. Three dimensionally, they disagreed. But the unifying factor is that they all desire the best for our country, even though they differ from each other so much. And maybe that kind of frames my feelings about this nomination. For context, before entering politics, before ever thinking about running for political office, I practiced medicine for 30 years in a public hospital for the uninsured, caring for those who otherwise would not have been able to afford the access to the care that I provided them. After seeing patients die from vaccine-preventable diseases, I dedicated much of my time to vaccine research and immunization programs, personally witnessing the safety monitoring and the effectiveness of immunization. Put simply, vaccines save lives. This is the context that informed me when considering RFK as the nominee to be Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. It was a decision I studied exhaustively and I took very seriously. And as I said I would, I spoke with Mr. Kennedy not once but multiple times over the weekend, including this morning. We had in-depth conversations about the medical literature and about the science behind the safety of vaccines. He referred me to studies and to people. I reviewed them and spoke to those whom he mentioned I should speak to. The most notable opponents of Mr. Kennedy were pediatricians on the frontlines of our children's health who regularly have to combat misinformation, combating vaccine skepticism with correct information-- correct information that comes from their education, their training, and experience as physicians. They are aware of the falling vaccine rates and the inevitability of increasing hospitalizations and deaths of children from vaccine-preventable diseases. They are aware that children are now contracting diseases that they would not have contracted if the child was vaccinated. I heard from others impassioned about the need to address chemicals in our food and a belief that we are victims of large impersonal forces maximizing profits while sacrificing their health. And there is evidence for that. Although, food safety is principally a USDA concern, I strongly agree that this is an issue society must address. Other RFK supporters are concerned regarding environmental risks. They fear these risks are being ignored by authorities. Mr. Kennedy's history of environmental activism motivates their support. I pointed out that the Environmental Protection Agency monitors this, not the Department of Health and Human Services. But they still feel that he can make a difference. So as I looked how to resolve this, I returned to where I began. Would it be possible to have Mr. Kennedy collaborate in helping public health agencies re-earn the trust of the American people? Regarding vaccines, Mr. Kennedy has been insistent that he just wants good science and to ensure safety. But on this topic, the science is good. The science is credible. Vaccines save lives. They are safe. They do not cause autism. There are multiple studies that show this. They are a crucial part of our Nation's public health response. But as someone who has discussed immunization with thousands of people, I do recognize that many mothers need reassurance that the vaccine their child is receiving is necessary, effective, and most of all, safe. While I am aligned with Mr. Kennedy as regards ultraprocessed food, reforming NIH, and taking on chronic disease, once more, it leaves vaccines. Mr. Kennedy and the administration reached out seeking to reassure me regarding their commitment to protecting the public health benefit of vaccination. To this end, Mr. Kennedy and the administration committed that he and I would have an unprecedentedly close collaborative working relationship if he is confirmed. We will meet or speak multiple times a month. This collaboration will allow us to work well together and, therefore, to be more effective. Mr. Kennedy has asked for my input into hiring decisions at HHS beyond Senate-confirmed positions. This aspect of the collaboration will allow us to represent all sides of those folks who were contacting me over this past weekend. He has also committed that he would work within current vaccine approval and safety monitoring systems and not establish parallel systems. If confirmed, he will maintain the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations without changes. CDC will not remove statements on their website pointing out that vaccines do not cause autism. Mr. Kennedy and the administration also committed that this administration will not use the subversive techniques used under the Biden administration, like sue and settle, to change policies enacted by Congress without first going through Congress. Mr. Kennedy and the administration committed to a strong role of Congress. Aside from he and I meeting regularly, he will come before the HELP Committee on a quarterly basis, if requested. He committed that the HELP Committee chair, whether it is me or someone else, may choose a representative on any board or commission formed to review vaccine safety. If he is confirmed, HHS will provide a 30-day notice to the HELP Committee if the Agency seeks to make changes to any of our Federal vaccine safety monitoring programs, and the HELP Committee will have the option to call a hearing to further review. These commitments, and my expectation that we could have a great working relationship to make America healthy again, is the basis of my support. He will be the Secretary, but I believe he will also be a partner in working for this end. If Mr. Kennedy is confirmed, I will use my authority as chairman of the Senate committee with oversight of HHS to rebuff any attempts to remove the public's access to lifesaving vaccines without ironclad, causational, scientific evidence that can be accepted and defended before the mainstream scientific community and before Congress. I will watch carefully for any effort to wrongfully sow public fear about vaccines through confusing references of coincidence and anecdote. But my support is built on assurances that this will not have to be a concern and that he and I could work together to build an agenda to make America healthy again. We need a leader at HHS who will guide President Trump's agenda to make America healthy again. Based on Mr. Kennedy's assurances on vaccines and his platform to positively influence Americans' health, it is my consideration that he will get this done. As I said, it has been a long and tense process. But I have assessed it, as I would assess a patient as a physician. Ultimately restoring trust in our public health institution is too important, and I think Mr. Kennedy can help get that done. As chairman of the Senate committee with oversight authority of his position, I will do my best to make sure that that is what we accomplish. I want Mr. Kennedy to succeed in making America healthy again. His success will be tied to the health of our Nation. He has the opportunity to address the most pertinent issues affecting Americans' health. We also need to reform institutions like the FDA and NIH, and those, as already has been indicated, are my priorities as chairman of the HELP Committee. I look forward to his support in accomplishing this. If confirmed, I look forward to working together with Mr. Kennedy to achieve President Trump's mission of improving the health of all Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Anthony Mitchell who is celebrating the reconstruction of his home with the help of both the New Orleans Area Habitat for Humanity and Thrivent after Hurricane Ida. Mr. Mitchell is a Louisiana native from the city of New Orleans. He served in the Navy during the Vietnam war, and after leaving military service, Mr. Mitchell returned to New Orleans to work as a handyman and carpenter. In 2021, Hurricane Ida rendered his home inhabitable, which forced Mr. Mitchell to live in his car. Thrivent and Habitant for Humanity partnered to assist with disaster relief efforts. Habitat for Humanity provided the materials and the labor needed to rebuild Mr. Mitchell's home and Thrivent supplied the necessary funding. The volunteers made sure that the new home would be flood resilient. On November 11, 2024, these charities began Super Build, a construction project to rebuild Mr. Mitchell's house before Super Bowl LIX. The Super Build will be completed tomorrow, on February 4, 2025, just in time for Mr. Mitchell to watch the championship game in his own home. The volunteers who devoted their time and efforts towards the reconstruction of Mr. Mitchell's home are nothing short of inspiring. I applaud these individuals for their selfless service towards Mr. Mitchell and dedication towards the New Orleans community. I ask that all of Louisiana join me in welcoming Mr. Mitchell into his new home.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, the bill we are discussing today should be really straightforward. A child who survives a failed abortion attempt should receive lifesaving medical care. We are talking about not an abstraction; we are talking about a living, breathing person--a little girl or a little boy--who comes into the world after a failed abortion. And they shouldn't just be put to the side and allowed to die. They deserve the care that they need to survive. Imagine if it was a week later and they were going home from the hospital and there was a car wreck. You would rush them to the hospital. You would do everything to help that child survive. Once that child is born, it should be straightforward: We should be helping the child survive. And there is no difference in the value and dignity of a child--of a person--as to whether or not they were originally wanted or not. Once they are born, they have that natural right, which we all have, that is discussed in our Declaration of Independence: our right to life, to liberty. I am a physician, and I was trained to take the best care of a patient regardless of the circumstances that brought them before me. And it may have been someone that society didn't particularly care for. It didn't matter. That is my patient. I am going to do everything I possibly can to help that patient survive and to thrive. That should be the ethic, and we should enshrine it into law. But, Mr. President, I am a little struck. My Democratic colleagues offer a variety of excuses to justify opposing this bill. This is kind of like an inconvenient truth. Botched abortions happen. Now, my Democratic colleagues refuse to acknowledge that infanticide--withholding care to a baby who is born alive--is horrific and wrong, but we do know that failed abortions occur. The Senate HELP Committee--Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions--heard powerful testimony last year from Melissa Ohden. Melissa survived an abortion and would have been left to die if not for a courageous NICU nurse--a neonatal intensive care unit nurse. A life that could have been wasted now is used to advocate for those who do not have a voice. Innocent children should not have to hope that there is a NICU nurse like Melissa's who will do everything possible to save their life. Mr. President, this is a vote in support of basic human decency. Every child deserves to have a chance to live. And I urge my colleagues, if you believe in prayer, pray on that. If you don't believe in prayer, look at the Declaration of Independence. We are endowed with the natural right of life and of liberty. Reflect on that. Support this bill. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, today is a day to celebrate. The Senate is moments away from keeping a promise we made to the American people when Social Security became law. Folks will get the benefits they earned. State and local workers in Louisiana and other States across the country are no different than other Americans who paid into the system. State and local government workers deserve their full Social Security benefit. Now with the passage of the Social Security Fairness Act, they will get it. This act repeals WEP, GPO--that stands for ``windfall elimination provision'' and ``government pension offset''--and stops Social Security from punishing public workers for the crime of serving their communities. Nurses, teachers, firefighters, police officers, widows of those who worked in the Social Security system will be made whole by what we do here tonight. I had a civics teacher in high school who always delighted in the fact that she taught someone who went on to become a Member of Congress, and Betty worked her whole life teaching in public schools. And because of GPO, when her husband passed away--her husband worked at Exxon Refinery, if I remember correctly--her Social Security benefit was cut to a fraction because she had worked in the public sector as a teacher. Under this system, she would have been better in terms of Social Security benefits if she had never worked at all. Most of us have a Betty in their life, in their State, in their hometown, or in their family--often a police officer or a firefighter, a first responder who served us, and now we have the opportunity to thank them for that service. With a vote today, we are standing up for folks like Betty and everyone like her across our Nation. It is a day to celebrate. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, the holiday season is upon us and should be a time filled with family, friends, and joy. But this year, it is filled with financial anxiety for many Americans. They are struggling to pay for their groceries, to heat their homes, struggling with property and casualty insurance. But I am here to speak to those who are struggling to afford flood insurance. For over 50 years, Americans have relied on the National Flood Insurance Program, or NFIP, to be a safety net in case of disaster. The program covers 4.7 million homes, but the program has become unaffordable, unaccountable, and unsustainable. And without congressional approval, FEMA worsened this by implementing a new risk assessment program called Risk Rating 2.0. This program dramatically increased premiums, even for those who had never flooded, and the skyrocketing prices brought on by Risk Rating 2.0 has left many Louisiana families and families in other States struggling with a financial burden. This financial strain has caused 52,000 Louisianans to drop their coverage in just 1 year, leaving them with no way to protect their homes. About half a million Americans nationwide have dropped their coverage. And this was anticipated by this Risk Rating 2.0. When the National Flood Insurance Program put it in place, they, again, anticipated that up to 20 percent of the people would drop their coverage. Now, during this holiday season, the financial burden of this program will only increase as Mom tries to give her kids a wonderful Christmas. That is why this month I introduced the Flood Insurance Affordability Tax Credit Act to give relief to Americans enrolled in NFIP. This legislation gives low- and middle-income households a real-time 33- percent refundable tax credit to combat the out-of-control flood insurance premium. It is not a permanent solution. We need serious reform. But cutting flood insurance bills by a third is a good place to start. I am working on a comprehensive NFIP program that protects families from excessive premium hikes, strengthens flood mitigation efforts, simplifies the claims process by cutting redtape. While we work to fix the broken system--and believe me to say I am working hard to do this-- this tax credit provides relief for current policy holders, and it provides a path for Americans who have been forced to drop their coverage due to unaffordable premiums to reenroll at an affordable price. It directs the Treasury Secretary to establish a program where premiums can be paid in advance. This benefits families when they need it the most, like now during the holiday season after a period of years of financial distress. Parents shouldn't have to pick between putting food on the table, wrapping presents under the Christmas tree, or paying for flood insurance. And with a tax credit taking a third off of her flood insurance bill, the mother trying to keep this together won't have to make these sacrifices. She will be able to give her kids the merry Christmas that they deserve and protect the home they sleep in. By the way, I am from Louisiana, but this isn't just true for families living in my State. It is true for families across the Nation. This year's hurricane season showed us flooding is possible in areas that don't typically make you think of flooding. Just think of the homes devastated by flooding in North Carolina. Americans need relief from Risk Rating 2.0. That is not the question. And America needs to pass massive reform. However, perhaps most importantly, Americans expect us to guarantee that the National Flood Insurance Program will still be here come the new year. If nothing happens, this program expires at the end of this week. I should correct that. For those who think that the government shutdown does not affect them, if the Government shuts down, the NFIP program will have a lapse. During that period, the program cannot sell or renew flood insurance policies or borrow from the Treasury to pay claims for existing policies. So my hope is that we can find this debt deal. I support Speaker Johnson in his attempts to do so, not the least of which is it preserves the National Flood Insurance Program for anyone that may call upon it during this intervening period. So just frankly speaking, letting the program lapse, temporarily or long-term, should not be an option. It is often the only flood insurance option for many communities. And without it, we leave millions vulnerable. That is why I am working with the entire Louisiana delegation on legislation to reauthorize the program. Today, I urge colleagues to support this reauthorization, giving their constituents peace of mind and protection this holiday season. Finally, I urge colleagues to look to the future. Passing the flood insurance affordability tax credit would give relief to policyholders and reauthorizing the program are only the first steps, but they are critical steps this body must take. And unless we want to do a disservice to the American people and NFIP, we should not stop here. When we come back in the new year, we should commit to reforming the program to make flood insurance affordable again. Every single one of my colleagues have constituents who rely upon the NFIP. If you look to this chart, every State in the union is shaded representing the number of NFIP claims each State has. Those in dark yellow have been hit hardest and have relied on NFIP the most. They all have at least $1 billion in NFIP claims since 1978; and 44 States have had over $50 million in claims over this time period. It is clear Americans rely on the program. But if we continue down this path, the program goes bankrupt. So my message to my colleagues representing States that rely on the National Flood Insurance Program--which is, frankly, all of us--let's find a way forward. My team has worked on a bipartisan permanent solution that rolls back Risk Rating 2.0, makes flood insurance affordable and accountable again. I encourage my colleagues to join me in the new year to get this done. In the meantime, let our Christmas gift to Americans enrolled in NFIP be a lower flood insurance bill and peace of mind by reauthorizing the program. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes and that Senator Brown be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes prior to the scheduled vote.

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, when Washington, when we in Congress, when the President makes a promise to the American people, people expect us to fulfill it. Today, the Senate has an opportunity to live up to a promise. Millions of teachers, firefighters, police officers--I worked in a public hospital for the uninsured, and I would add nurses, technicians, lab techs, janitors--they expect us to fulfill this promise, and they are watching today. They are watching, filled with hope that the Senate will pass the Social Security Fairness Act to finally stop punishing them for having elected to serve our communities. We can fix a broken system that has unfairly harmed them for almost 30 years. We can finally deliver relief this Christmas for millions of Americans after years of nothing but empty promises. The Social Security Fairness Act has passed the House and has overwhelming, bipartisan support in the Senate. With 62 cosponsors, it should not be even a question if we have the support to move forward today. Not too long ago, I met with a retired Louisiana schoolteacher impacted by GPO. She cried in my office, not understanding why she was getting less in Social Security spousal benefits than if she had never worked at all. Think about this. She had her quarters. She had worked, say, 20 years in the private sector. She was getting less from spousal benefits than if she had never worked at all. She felt like she was being punished for educating generations of Louisiana children, and she was being punished. There is no excuse to treat our public servants this way. So to my colleagues who are concerned about the pricetag, I hear you. The good news: I have a plan that helps address these concerns. I have a comprehensive Social Security plan that addresses both the insolvency in 9 years and including paying for this repeal of WEP and GPO. If you want to talk about it, I have been promoting this for 4 years. By the way, it does not increase the full retirement age. People can still retire at the age at which they planned to retire. By the way, it checks boxes that President Trump, during his campaigning, said he would like to do in order to benefit our Nation. It checks that box too. So if you are concerned about the pricetag, please talk to me about how we can afford to do right by the public servants who are being penalized by WEP and GPO but also help our Nation financially. We can do both if we have the courage to do both. But at the very least today, we can keep a promise to make Social Security fair again. I want to thank all the advocates for their work in getting here, including the Louisiana Sheriffs' Association, the Louisiana Chiefs of Police Association, the Louisiana State Employees' Retirement System, the Louisiana Police Jury Association, the Louisiana Municipal Association, the International Association of Firefighters, the National Fraternal Order of Police, and all the others who have contributed so much to this effort. I also want to thank President Trump, who has publicly announced his support for this bill. It is a sacred trust between the American people and our government. President-elect Trump--soon-to-be President Trump-- recognizes this. As long as I am here, I will fight to keep the promises that we make to the American people. With that, I yield to my good friend Senator Brown.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I am speaking to S. 3373, the hydropower license extension, which helps a lock on the Red River and Overton Lock projects. This bill is incredibly important to Louisiana. Hydropower is reliable, safe, and responsible; and the Federal Government should be enabling projects, not standing in the way. Today's actions are bipartisan, pro-job and pro-American energy. I am glad to see Congress cut the redtape holding up the Red River and Overton Lock projects. These hydropower projects have been negatively impacted by supply chain issues the last 4 years. They simply need more time to start construction. I am very pleased to see this get across the finish line. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise to support H.R. 6843, which is part of this package, the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area Boundary Remodification Act. I want to take just a moment to talk about the Atchafalaya. Le Grand Derangement--my French is off, but stay with me. When the British kicked the Acadians out of Canada and they migrated down to Louisiana and along the gulf coast, the Atchafalaya basin was where many of them settled, and their culture spread out from there. And if you think of our culture with the etouffee, the jambalaya, the crawfish, it all began in the Atchafalaya basin and built out from there. And if you look at a map, where the Mississippi comes down, draining most of the continental United States, and then the Red River comes down, which drains Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas--they meet, and the Atchafalaya is born. Prehistorically, the Atchafalaya River was an outlet for the Mississippi River. And if it were not for human engineering, it would once again be the outlet for the Mississippi. It is 1.4 million acres of swamps and wetlands and rivers--the largest wetlands in the United States. And I say this because this culture, this Acadian culture--one of the most unique, if not the most unique, in our country--began here. In our boundary modification, we extend the footprint of this, acknowledging that the Cajuns that came from Canada, finding refuge in the United States, putting a unique imprint--a unique imprint on our country. And I hesitate because I'm thinking. For example, Breaux Bridge, LA, has the crawfish capital of the world. Now, we are the only State, I am sure, that has the crawfish capital of the world. But to show where that goes, yesterday, I am at a truck stop in Arkansas, and I stop and they are selling crispy, crunchy chicken. And with the crispy, crunchy chicken, I can get a side. It is jambalaya, it is red beans and rice, and it is something else. I said: This is Louisiana day. The guy laughed. He goes: It sure is. So the food that began when those Acadians settled there has spread out. What this does is it expands that footprint. It allows more of a celebration of that culture, a preservation of the sportsmen's paradise. And along the way, it created a lot of jobs. It has support across Louisiana, including from the original 14 parishes within the national heritage area. So I thank my colleagues for getting this across the line. I am very pleased about it, and I look forward to the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area educating even more Americans as to the wonders of my State. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I rise in support of the Federal Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2024. Three years after Hurricane Ida and months after Hurricane Francine hit Louisiana, communities are still recovering, and every bit we give helps. This bill allows Hurricanes Ida and Francine victims and other victims of natural disasters elsewhere in the country to deduct qualified disaster-related personal casualty losses from their income, even when above the standard deduction. This is not new, and this is not novel. We have done it before. I led legislation to help the victims of Hurricane Laura and for those impacted by the great floods of 2016. By the Senate passing the bill tonight, the bill will go to the President's desk to be signed into law, cutting taxes for Louisiana families who will use this money to rebuild. It goes without saying, we only have to look at North Carolina to say what an impact this can have elsewhere in the country. We have to recognize that if a family wants to rebuild, we can give them a Federal handout, or we can say: Use your own resources. And these are their own resources. The American people have always been there to help whoever has had a natural disaster. We in Louisiana have benefited. We in Louisiana will always help others. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, before the Thanksgiving holiday, my colleagues--we--voted late into the night. And I have no problem with that if we are voting on meaningful legislation. But that is not what we have been doing. We are voting on last-minute, lameduck Biden-Harris judicial nominees. But we have serious legislation for millions of Americans that the House overwhelmingly passed in mid-November, sent to the Senate, and it is waiting for a vote. I am speaking of the Social Security Fairness Act, which repeals the Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset--WEP and GPO. This is something which affects my State of Louisiana and affects the President of the Senate's State of California. We are particularly affected, but so are others--Texas and Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, New York, New Jersey--I could go down the list-- both blue States and red States. It recognizes, first, that Social Security is a sacred trust between generations; a promise to workers that when they retire, they will not live in poverty. But right now, Social Security's future is in danger. According to the people who run this program, if Social Security does nothing, the Social Security trust fund would be busted in 9 years-- flat bankrupt. And then there will be an automatic 20- to 24-percent cut in benefits for everyone receiving Social Security and for those who will receive it in the future. Someone once said: Well, won't I be grandfathered in? And she was a female, so I said: I think you mean ``grandmothered'' in, but it doesn't matter. No, if you are already on Social Security, you get a 24-percent cut. So I will state here, we must save, strengthen, and secure Social Security. And I am pleased to say there is a plan to do so. But one thing, what we cannot do as we work to save Social Security is perpetuate an unfairness, an unjustness--an unjustness that began decades ago. This unfairness targets people who have dedicated their lives to serving communities on the State and local level, such as first responders and teachers. So, today, we can take a step toward that fairness. We can repeal two unfair Social Security provisions with the Social Security Fairness Act if the majority leader schedules a vote. WEP and GPO penalize families--and I have already mentioned particularly in States like Louisiana, California, Maine, Texas--who have worked a public service job for part of their career with a separate pension from Social Security. We are talking about first responders, the police officers, the firefighters but also the teachers and other public employees who are being punished for serving their communities. How did we get here? WEP and GPO were introduced decades ago to address perceived inequalities in the Social Security system, but they have had the opposite effect of creating real, tangible inequalities. When my firefighters, police officers, and teachers in Louisiana have a second job or second career or get married, they are being unfairly punished, receiving far less from Social Security than if they had never worked in public service at all, and that is not right. WEP reduces the earned Social Security benefits of individuals who also receive a pension from a non-Social Security government job. This has resulted in thousands who have paid into the system during their careers receiving a significantly reduced Social Security benefit when they retire. GPO reduces earned Social Security spousal or survivor benefits for individuals who also receive a government pension. This provision can reduce or even eliminate the Social Security benefits that a spouse or widow might have expected and relied upon. Public servant spouses would receive more than if they had never worked at all. Let me repeat that. If you have a teacher married to someone who has a great job, he dies, she doesn't receive but a fraction of the Social Security benefit that she would have received from her husband's Social Security benefit. As a guy who used to work in a hospital for the uninsured run by the State, I worked a lot with nurses, I consistently hear from the people I worked with and from constituents that they feel like they are being punished for serving community, and that is in Louisiana, but it is for public servants across the country who feel the exact same way. WEP and GPO affect Americans in every single State, and there is no excuse to treat our public servants this way. It should never have become law, but we have an opportunity to fix it. In mid-November, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Social Security Fairness Act. As a longtime original cosponsor of the Senate version, I have been waiting to proudly vote yes and finally repeal WEP and GPO. Instead, day after day, Senate Democrats have focused their attention on ramming through partisan nominees rather than passing serious legislation. And if it sounds like I am frustrated, I am. We owe it to every public servant who has taught our kids, protected our streets, run into a burning building, and more to pass this bill. The time for theater is through. It is time to get serious and vote on legislation that matters. I am ready to vote yes on the Social Security Fairness Act and repeal WEP and GPO for people in Louisiana and for Americans across the country. So I call upon the majority leader to schedule a vote on the Social Security Fairness Act, and I urge colleagues to join in support of it. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.